Well. I guess, it might be good to get some more opinions on the questions at hand. Maybe I am the only one in favour of longer breaks between the sets. After all I have heard from others, I doubt it. But anyway, I´d just have to suck it up then, I guess.

For the sake of argument: Let´s say, we agree on longer breaks & not having new sets every week. If you are fixed on the divisions size, then playing home & away games at the same time seems the way to go ?

Either with 2 weekly sets, that would allow for a break during the season (summer or Christmas, depending when the season starts) & a long break at the end of the season (before the start of the next). Or with 3 weekly sets, with only a very short (or no) break during the season, but a long break at the end.

I could live with both these arrangements.

Question then being the scoring system: Home & away still counted separately, even when played at the same time ? Or as one result, as it is in the current CLA League ? And how many games per set, when we have longer breaks between them ?

Some more opinions on these matters would be good, I think. Maybe some polls (for the public or clan representatives): Do we want longer breaks between the sets ? Should home & away sets be counted separately ? If yes, should they be played at different times too ?

Based on results, two different approaches / set-ups / schedules could be designed, that people can vote on.

AhundaThis is a false argument. How you view this (who of the two deserved to go to the semis) completely depends on your personal opinion. You say, TSM won more "challenges" & thus would have deserved to progress. I could say, BpB won more games overall during the season & thus deserved to progress. There is no right or wrong here. It´s a matter of opinion.

In this CLA League Season Phase 1, Division C, we faced this situation:

IA 41-19 games, 10 ptsKORT 47-13 games, 8 pts

Who deserved the number spot 1 here ? Some KORT members might find it "very wrong", that they won 6 games more than IA, but were only 2nd.

How do you mean false argument? Bpb lost more chalenges, but still ,consider that win dont count, they progress to finale. This is not false, and in new concept ,Winner will be Team who score most points. What its purpose of chalenge wins, if you put that only games count? And you can not compare CL4 with CL2, because CL4 have specific system,where after each phase, all score are reset to zero.I want to avoide all this,and here you have only one phase,and in very simple way,you will get winner of league.

ahunda wrote:Well. I guess, it might be good to get some more opinions on the questions at hand. Maybe I am the only one in favour of longer breaks between the sets. After all I have heard from others, I doubt it. But anyway, I´d just have to suck it up then, I guess.

For the sake of argument: Let´s say, we agree on longer breaks & not having new sets every week. If you are fixed on the divisions size, then playing home & away games at the same time seems the way to go ?

Either with 2 weekly sets, that would allow for a break during the season (summer or Christmas, depending when the season starts) & a long break at the end of the season (before the start of the next). Or with 3 weekly sets, with only a very short (or no) break during the season, but a long break at the end.

I could live with both these arrangements.

Question then being the scoring system: Home & away still counted separately, even when played at the same time ? Or as one result, as it is in the current CLA League ? And how many games per set, when we have longer breaks between them ?

Some more opinions on these matters would be good, I think. Maybe some polls (for the public or clan representatives): Do we want longer breaks between the sets ? Should home & away sets be counted separately ? If yes, should they be played at different times too ?

Based on results, two different approaches / set-ups / schedules could be designed, that people can vote on.

First-Dont you dare to shut up! We need all talk here. In previous post Ace give me great idea.Also we are not going to play home and away in same week, we will play normal round robin scedule.What hit me in head its this:

Week 1-Round 1 and 2 playWeek 2-Week 3-Week 4- Round 3 and 4 playWeek 5-Week 6-Week 7-Round 5 and 6 play=========================So every third week clans will start play against diferent opponent, and will have quite enough time for rest and preparation.(example EMP play home in round 1 against TSM, and play away in round 2 against DYn). So one clan will need to prepare 8 home games and to join 8 away games. Consider that this its round robin, clan who create home games in round 1,will be visitor in round 14.(example EMP vs TSM, will play again in round 14, where TSM will be host against EMP)Also consider that you have 21 days betwene rounds, then much of games will be decided and finished before start of next round, what its big + for organizer to fill and update tables ,simultanious with chalenges.

ahunda wrote:This is a false argument. How you view this (who of the two deserved to go to the semis) completely depends on your personal opinion. You say, TSM won more "challenges" & thus would have deserved to progress. I could say, BpB won more games overall during the season & thus deserved to progress. There is no right or wrong here. It´s a matter of opinion.

In this CLA League Season Phase 1, Division C, we faced this situation:

IA 41-19 games, 10 ptsKORT 47-13 games, 8 pts

Who deserved the number spot 1 here ? Some KORT members might find it "very wrong", that they won 6 games more than IA, but were only 2nd.

How do you mean false argument? Bpb lost more chalenges, but still ,consider that win dont count, they progress to finale. This is not false, and in new concept ,Winner will be Team who score most points. What its purpose of chalenge wins, if you put that only games count? And you can not compare CL4 with CL2, because CL4 have specific system,where after each phase, all score are reset to zero.I want to avoide all this,and here you have only one phase,and in very simple way,you will get winner of league.

I understand your position, qwert. But you can look at this in different ways. I am not saying, you are wrong, or your scoring system is wrong. What I am saying, is: Both scoring systems are valid & have their justification. It is a matter of opinion, which one you prefer.

Take the example, that I mentioned above (IA vs KORT), and imagine, that trend would have continued throughout an entire season of your format. IA winning set after set, but always very close (5-3,5-3,5-3,...), KORT trashing its opposition week after week (7-1,8-0,6-2,...), but then having bad luck in one set and going 4-4. At the end of the season, KORT might have 30 more wins than IA, but 1 point less. Can you imagine, that in such a case people might start to argue, that your scoring system is not fair ? That KORT was the better clan throughout the season & should be the winner ?

The smaller the sets get, the more luck comes into it. A weaker clan might beat a top clan in an 8 game set with lucky drops & dice, but what about a 60 game challenge ? The argument against your scoring system is, that you put too much weight on the out-come of those small 8 game sets. And that counting overall performance in all games during the season might be better.

I personally think the allowed game limit per round needs to be bumped up from 3 per week. It makes it harder to put people in on maps if one or two players go on vacation or turn premium. This would allow more flexibility from week to week and would help if you happen to get a set of away games where only a couple players are familiar with the settings. Since the home games are locked in having 3 slots limits what they could in the away games.

The Voice wrote:Com'on, guys. No single person is going to get everything he or she wants. If I'm not mistaken, the CLA exists so that every competitive clan can have a voice if it so chooses. If we can't be reasonable, at the very least civil, this thread will soon be archived and locked, and we'll have to start from square one again. Let's not make this about who can put the most exclamation points in a post or throws the most insults.

EDIT: Didn't see lynch's post. More should be like this. So, what if round limits were mandated for every trench game?

Am I missing something? Is there any reason to not put round limits on ALL games? If you have a no spoils game that is going on past 30 rounds that will take just as long as a trench game doing the same. And obviously an escalating game should be done long before a round limit is up as well. Could someone point out why we shouldn't have a 20/30/50 round limit on every single game? If everyone knows going in and it's getting close then the clan who prepares for it will get the win. How is this less strategic than a grind it out game?

king sam wrote:quit facebook stalking me... and Im a sailor all I do is drunk, cuss and make illegitimate kids when Im away from CC

Crazyirishman wrote:I personally think the allowed game limit per round needs to be bumped up from 3 per week. It makes it harder to put people in on maps if one or two players go on vacation or turn premium. This would allow more flexibility from week to week and would help if you happen to get a set of away games where only a couple players are familiar with the settings. Since the home games are locked in having 3 slots limits what they could in the away games.

I dont quite understand what you mean? In every round player can play maximum 3 game, and this its enough number consider that one round have 8 games. Each round are separate , one round you play home, maximum 3 game,next round play away, again maximum 3 games.If you have player who want to play in every round,then he could play maximum 78 games, and its this not enough,then i dont know how many games need to be limit??? Ofcourse if he play every round 3 games,then some of players will be in problem to get medals,if they become winner.Also you need to have minimum 10 diferent players in each round.

We need feedback - which is more important, winning the most games, or winning the most weeks? Which one should be more important? Seeing how some of the luck has gone in CL4 with the small sets, I'd be inclined to agree with ahunda and say that it should be just on the basis of total wins over the season, not points for a win or a draw.

Ace Rimmer wrote:We need feedback - which is more important, winning the most games, or winning the most weeks? Which one should be more important? Seeing how some of the luck has gone in CL4 with the small sets, I'd be inclined to agree with ahunda and say that it should be just on the basis of total wins over the season, not points for a win or a draw.

No need to have any feedback, Award system are decide, and this will be point award. And this Luck in CL4? All favorites play in First division,so i realy dont see luck there. Luck will be that Kort-IA-TSM- or some other high ranked clan ,not manage to qualify into division 1. Win and draw are two thing what its importan in any league.In football you play 90 minute and win with 1 goal, and sometime you play draw. Sometime big favorite play draw with most veak opponent,and again its ok. If i need to do some statistic for CL4, to see how many top 10 clans lost games,against clans belove 10th place, to prove that luck dont have big impact, then ok.

++++++++++++++++++++++++here we go statistic(top 10 clans from 400 ranking)kort -win 4tofu -win 4pack-win 3 -draw 1tsm -win 3-lost 1emp -win 3ia -win 4 aoc -win 4-draw 1lhdd -win 1-draw 1-lost 1afos -win 2-draw 3pig -win 3-lost 1=================now some people say"its a small number of games,luck can be involve" but statistic say totaly opposite. Top 10 clans play against clans belove 10th place -41 match,and score are 31 win-7 draw and 3 lost. This mean that top 10 clans have 75% of succes, but if you count draw also(they not defeated) then succes are 92,68% of succes. I think that luck dont have any impact on top 10 clans, because they lost only 3 game against clans belove top 10.What i need to do next to prove that luck are not big factor in clan league?

I don't want to see trench games in the competition. To me it's about as necessary as doing freestyle. They are specialized styles of play that seem counter intuitive to clan gaming competitions.

I am fine with nuclear.

I'd prefer to stay away from unlimited. Most clans don't seem to like unlimited so I'm going with the majority on that. If I felt that most clans did like unlimited then I'd maybe vote for it. But since the prevailing preference is against it then I think that it is suitable to avoid it.

qwert wrote:++++++++++++++++++++++++here we go statistic(top 10 clans from 400 ranking)kort -win 4tofu -win 4pack-win 3 -draw 1tsm -win 3-lost 1emp -win 3ia -win 4 aoc -win 4-draw 1lhdd -win 1-draw 1-lost 1afos -win 2-draw 3pig -win 3-lost 1=================now some people say"its a small number of games,luck can be involve" but statistic say totaly opposite. Top 10 clans play against clans belove 10th place -41 match,and score are 31 win-7 draw and 3 lost. This mean that top 10 clans have 75% of succes, but if you count draw also(they not defeated) then succes are 92,68% of succes. I think that luck dont have any impact on top 10 clans, because they lost only 3 game against clans belove top 10.What i need to do next to prove that luck are not big factor in clan league?

I don't know where we left off on a prelim competition for league position? We just lost to LHDD by 1. We would like a chance to make it into the premier league from the start rather than be relegated by a formula. Let teams earn their way into the leagues based on merit, not legacy.

qwert wrote:++++++++++++++++++++++++here we go statistic(top 10 clans from 400 ranking)kort -win 4tofu -win 4pack-win 3 -draw 1tsm -win 3-lost 1emp -win 3ia -win 4 aoc -win 4-draw 1lhdd -win 1-draw 1-lost 1afos -win 2-draw 3pig -win 3-lost 1=================now some people say"its a small number of games,luck can be involve" but statistic say totaly opposite. Top 10 clans play against clans belove 10th place -41 match,and score are 31 win-7 draw and 3 lost. This mean that top 10 clans have 75% of succes, but if you count draw also(they not defeated) then succes are 92,68% of succes. I think that luck dont have any impact on top 10 clans, because they lost only 3 game against clans belove top 10.What i need to do next to prove that luck are not big factor in clan league?

I don't know where we left off on a prelim competition for league position? We just lost to LHDD by 1. We would like a chance to make it into the premier league from the start rather than be relegated by a formula. Let teams earn their way into the leagues based on merit, not legacy.

This mine post dont have nothing with league position,its some example from CL4, and how top 10 clans from 400 ranking ,win almost all games, and this mean that luck have little impact on games.

Now , there its no chance for any preliminary competition for league position. Its will be decide by 400 algoritm ranking,or by final score by CL4(if this become official new league), or some combination of bouth.Last ranking update(6-06-2012) show that Manifest Destinu are ranked 19, so this mean that your clan are qualify to be in First league. This mean that you need to move to position 14 for Premier LEague. September are far away,so your clan still have chance to move up on algoritm 400 ranking.

>>I'd prefer to stay away from unlimited. Most clans don't seem to like unlimited so I'm going with the majority on that. If I felt that most clans did like unlimited then I'd maybe vote for it. But since the prevailing preference is against it then I think that it is suitable to avoid it.<<

ok, good to know this. Somehow im in a middle for this settings, some people like and some people dont like. So i have several option with this1. no unlimited2. yes unlimited3.yes unlimited with limited game to use=================================ok,this will still open for final decision.

Looks like most to the clans buy into e CC Clan League Suggest we start to move it out of the foundry to Beta and make it work. Hits happen and bugs can be worked on. But it's all good.

Is there a motion needed at the Clan League Association ? a founding meeting, draft constitution, grant of charters,schedules to go to the printers ,hiring of a Commissioner, appointing neutral umpires/referees to deal with minor disputes, appeal to the Commissioners, fina appeals to the owners, Labour day kick-off doable?

Whatever ground rules as to settings etc, can be worked out on paper , subject to easy amendment or erasure. Maybe a 3 month trial period to work out bugs,, see how we do and then review if any changes needed for the rest of the initial season. Final review, put in pen after that. Beta goes out the door.

Change the color of Features Team

Postby GoranZ on Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:12 amConcise description:Change the color of Features Team, their color is way too light, make it darker

qwert wrote:>>I'd prefer to stay away from unlimited. Most clans don't seem to like unlimited so I'm going with the majority on that. If I felt that most clans did like unlimited then I'd maybe vote for it. But since the prevailing preference is against it then I think that it is suitable to avoid it.<<

ok, good to know this. Somehow im in a middle for this settings, some people like and some people dont like. So i have several option with this1. no unlimited2. yes unlimited3.yes unlimited with limited game to use=================================ok,this will still open for final decision.

here are facts how much unlimited was used in CL4, and how much adjacent was used in CL4:

number of unlimited games: Total 63 (even with limitation of 2 per set)D1: 22 (used like home map by 7 different clans)D2: 20 (used like home map by 6 different clans)D3: 16D4: 3D5: 2

number of adjacent games: Total 36 (without any limitation)D1: 18 (used like home map by 4 different clans)D2: 5 (used like home map by 2 different clans)D3: 6D4: 7D5: 0

Those numbers prove that statement "Most clans don't seem to like unlimited" is false. in D1 and D2, 13 out of 16 clans used unlimited, while only 6 out of 16 clans used adjacent for their home settings. Do not forget, unlimited fort was limited to maximal 2 per set, and adjacent was not limited at all. so unlimited fort is probably more popular than those numbers says.so if you put limit on unlimited fort, because "Most clans don't seem to like unlimited" then please put limit on adjacent aswell because number of games played on adjacent provs that settings are way less popular than unlimited fort.

number of unlimited games: Total 63 (even with limitation of 2 per set)D1: 22 (used like home map by 7 different clans)D2: 20 (used like home map by 6 different clans)D3: 16D4: 3D5: 2---------------and awailabile are 14 times per clan,right? this give you number per division 112 times.So in all 5 division, availabile games for unlimited fortification are over 500 games. And clans only use in 63 games.Then i dont know why organisers of CL4 ,put limitation on Unlimited forts?

well sometime idea come sudenly,in discusion from other topics, so i include this rule(colored blue).

TIEBREAKIf points are equal between two or more Clans, the rules are:

1.tiebreakers between two clan are applied in the following order:

a)Game difference for the entire seasonb)Head-to-head results.c)Most away wins for the entire season

2.If the tie is between more than two clans, then the tie is broken, using the games the clans have played against each other: a) head-to-head points b) head-to-head game differencec)head-to-head away game wins d)Most away wins for the entire season

3.If the tie is still not broken, it will be resolved with a tie-break match[TBD]

Acording to Algorithm ranking system first 14 ranked clans will get invitation to be member of Premier League. Next 14 ranked clans will get invitation to be member of First League.All clans ranked belove 28 possition,and all new clans,will get invitation to play in Qualification Tournament.

Thank you.

IcePack wrote:Sounds like its pretty universally agreed to keep the results out (almost). Easy enough. I'll make sure the last 1 vs 1 wasn't included as well.

Fewnix - I believe he plans to use the rankings here to create the seeding bracket. Basically any clan that signs up would be placed in his leagues in order that they appear on F400.

If you have other questions, you can PM qwert or you can ask me and I'll do my best to answer, although I'm not directly involved with the league.

IcePack

and thank you Qwert for all you have done, are doing and will do.

Change the color of Features Team

Postby GoranZ on Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:12 amConcise description:Change the color of Features Team, their color is way too light, make it darker

I assume that if the top 14 Clans in the August ratings,from KORT to BOTFM, accept the invites, they will be in the Premier League. If any of them decline to participate in the league then PIGS would be in the Premier League and so forth.

Similarly if the top 14 clans in the August rating, from KORT to BOTFM, accept the invites,then clans from PIGS to HH accepting the invites will be in the First League. But if any of the clans in the top 14 decline then the clans in the First league could include VDLL